Appellant's Brief - Florida State University College of Law

ecause the

ecause the State had presented him as a “good citizen who came forward without any real reward” (PC-R2. 214-215). At his jury trial, Mr. Riechmann testified in his own defense. The trial lasted from July 13 to August 12, 1988 and he was convicted of both counts (R. 533-34). Judgments of conviction were entered on August 30, 1988 (R. 566-67). The jury voted nine to three (9-3) to recommend a death sentence (R. 553). A death sentence was imposed on November 4, 1988 (R. 589-601). The conviction was affirmed on appeal. Riechmann v. State, 581 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 1991), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 405 (1992). On September 30, 1994, Mr. Riechmann filed for post- conviction relief. Judge Solomon, the trial judge, recused himself. Judge Gold was specially appointed by this Court’s Sreenan said, “Walter has a problem with who is going to take care of his daughter while he is serving time. And I know that that has been a concern of Walter’s. Certainly this witness has not been housing his daughter for him” (Stitzer deposition at 83). In 2002, Ms. Sreenan testified that “we didn’t think that her whereabouts or who she was staying with was really relevant. A man in prison is concerned about his son or daughter and bringing her into this case.” (PC-R2. 1358-59). Ms. Sreenan precluded the defense from learning that Smykowski’s daughter was in fact living with Robert Stitzer’s wife, Loretta. Sreenan did this because she was “trying to protect the location and identity of the daughter.” (PC-R2. 1359). Several weeks before the deposition, Sreenan had received an undisclosed letter from Smykowski dated March 27, 1988, specifically asking for her help in finding an arrangement for his daughter (PC-R2. 1355). 18

Chief Justice to preside over the case. An evidentiary hearing was held on May 13-17, June 11-12, and July 18-19, 1996. At the evidentiary hearing before Judge Gold, Mr. Riechmann presented evidence that the Miami Beach Police Department and the prosecutors inexplicably withheld significant exculpatory evidence. Trial counsel was not provided with the following: 1. An October 27, 1987, police report which corroborated Mr. Riechmann’s story was never provided to defense counsel. The report indicated that the couple dined and drank for several hours at the “Jardin Brazilian” restaurant where Officers Aprile and Marcus interviewed the waiter (PC-R., Def. Ex. DDD). The withheld report indicated that the couple appeared to be vacationing tourists “in a good mood” and in “good spirits” (PC-R. 104). The couple drank “six drinks each” of rum, vodka, gin and Amaretto.” They appeared “intoxicated.” 2. Police reports describing Mr. Riechmann’s conduct after he flagged down a police officer were withheld. These reports indicated that Mr. Riechmann, in broken English, had frantically tried to describe to police what had happened to his girlfriend. According to these police reports, Mr. Riechmann was visibly “distraught,” “upset,” “sobbing,” “dejected,” “emotionally upset,” “hysterical,” “crying and holding his face,” “with tears coming out of his eyes,” “smelling of alcohol.” “He obviously had been through a terrible experience.” (PC-R. 4565, 4575). 3. A myriad of photographs taken by crime scene technicians of the rental car were not disclosed. However, most of the critical photographs of the driver’s seat, interior of the trunk and interior roofof the car have gone missing and have never 19